alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Charles CORRELL, Appellant, v. COMMONWEALTH of Kentucky, Appellee.

Court of Appeals of Kentucky.

Nov. 7, 1958.

Parker W. Duncan, Bowling Green, James G. Begley, Danville, Grannis Bach, Jackson, for appellant.

Jo M. Ferguson, Atty. Gen., Edward L. Fossett, Asst. Atty. Gen., J. Douglas Graham, Commonwealth’s Atty., Campton, for appellee.

WADDILL, Commissioner.

Appellant, Charles Correll, was convicted of the crime of robbery and was sentenced to prison for a term of two years. The Attorney General concedes that the proof in the case does not support appellant’s conviction of the crime of robbery.

The evidence reveals that during July, 1955, appellant went to Breathitt County to-purchase logs for his employer, the Cramer Veneering Company. While there, appellant and the prosecuting witness, James Hudson, entered into an oral agreement concerning certain logs which Hudson owned. Hudson testified that he agreed to sell his logs to the Cramer Veneering Company on the condition that he receive payment prior to the time the logs were shipped to the company. Although this condition was not complied with, the logs were loaded upon a railroad car by Hudson’s son. A bill of lading was issued by the railroad company to James Hudson showing receipt of the logs for delivery to the Cramer Veneering Company.

Shortly after the logs were shipped, the Cramer Company became insolvent, and Hudson did not receive payment for his logs. As a consequence thereof, appellant was indicted for robbery.

In Kentucky, robbery is a common law offense, denounced but not defined by Statute. KRS 433.120; Roberson’s New Kentucky Criminal Law, Section 601, page 806. However, robbery has been consistently defined by our Court as “the act of feloniously and forcibly taking from the person of another, goods or money by violence or by putting him in fear.” Burks v. Commonwealth, Ky., 259 S.W.2d 68, 70; Armstrong v. Commonwealth, 190 Ky. 217, 227 S.W. 162; Roberson’s New Kentucky Criminal Law, Section 601, page 806. Taking property from another by stealth, trick, artifice or fraud is not robbery in the absence of force or circumstances calculated to produce fear. 46 Am.Jur., Robbery, Section 20, page 149.

*887Inasmuch as the proof in this case did not establish that appellant took Hudson’s property by the use of force or by intimidation, but by consent, the Commonwealth failed to prove an essential element of the ■crime of robbery. Therefore, the Court should have sustained appellant’s motion for a directed verdict of acquittal.

The judgment is reversed, with directions to set it aside and to grant appellant a new trial.
**EXHIBIT 24.3**

**POWER OF ATTORNEY**

**(Annual Report on Form 10-K)**

The undersigned, an officer and/or director of Electro Scientific Industries, Inc., constitutes and appoints Nicholas Konidaris and Kerry Mustoe, and each of them, hisor her true and lawful attorney and agent to do any and all acts and things and execute in his or her name as an officer or director of the Company the Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended June 3, 2006 and any and all amendmentsthereto, and to file the same, with all exhibits thereto, and other documents in connection therewith, with the Securities and Exchange Commission; and the undersigned does hereby ratify and confirm all that said attorneys and agents and each ofthem shall do or cause to be done by virtue hereof. Any one of said attorneys or agents shall have, and may exercise, all powers conferred. 

Dated: July 20, 2006.
#### Jane ALLEN, Appellant, v. Ed FOSTER et al., Appellees.

Court of Appeals of Kentucky.

Feb. 1, 1957.

Rehearing Denied May 3, 1957.

John W. Murphy, Jr., Liberty, Fred Faulkner, Sr., Campbellsville, for appellant.

Moore & Pittman, Liberty, for appellees.

PER CURIAM.

This is a motion for an appeal from a judgment of the Casey Circuit Court determining the boundary line between adjacent landowners Jane Allen and Ed Foster. The judgment recites that the land in question has a value of $1,000. There was ample evidence to sustain the finding that Jane Allen had no title to the land in *790question either by instrument or by adverse possession.

The motion for an appeal is overruled and the judgment is affirmed.

MONTGOMERY, J., not sitting.
_________________________________________ 

 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court 

Lansing, Michigan 

January 27, 2006 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

Michael F. Cavanagh 

Elizabeth A. Weaver 128953 

Marilyn Kelly 

Maura D. Corrigan 

Robert P. Young, Jr. 

Stephen J. Markman, MARY HESS, Justices 

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

v SC: 128953 

 COA: 260394 

Washtenaw CC: 03-000787-CZ 

CITY OF SALINE, 

Defendant-Appellee. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the May 12, 2005 

judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not 

persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court. 

KELLY, J., would grant leave to appeal. 

d0120 

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the 

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. 

January 27, 2006 

Clerk
Report of Independent Accountants


To the Board of Directors and Stockholders
of Surgical Dynamics Inc.

In our opinion, the accompanying consolidated balance sheets and the
related consolidated statements of operations and retained earnings and
of cash flows present fairly, in all material respects, the financial
position of Surgical Dynamics Inc. and its subsidiaries at May 31, 1994
and 1993, and the results of their operations and their cash flows for
each of the three years in the period ended May 31, 1994, in conformity
with generally accepted accounting principles.  These financial
statements are the responsibility of the Company's management; our
responsibility is to express an opinion on these financial statements
based on our audits.  We conducted our audits of these statements in
accordance with generally accepted auditing standards which require
that we plan and perform the audit to obtain reasonable assurance about
whether the financial statements are free of material misstatement.  An
audit includes examining, on a test basis, evidence supporting the
amounts and disclosures in the financial statements, assessing the
accounting principles used and significant estimates made by
management, and evaluating the overall financial statement
presentation.  We believe that our audits provide a reasonable basis
for the opinion expressed above.

As discussed in Note 8 to the consolidated financial statements, the
accompanying financial statements included an estimated liability
related to the early termination of a lease agreement.  The Company is
in negotiations with its former landlord.  The final resolution of
actual settlement amounts, however, is dependent upon future events,
the outcome of which is not fully determinable at the present time.




Price Waterhouse LLP
San Francisco, California
July 12, 1994
                                      -40-
```

[Federal Register: October 22, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 204)]
[Notices]               
[Page 65401]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr22oc10-142]                         

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

[AC 187-1D]

 
Schedule of Charges Outside the United States

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of availability.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) is announcing the 
availability of Advisory Circular (AC) 187-1D which transmits an 
updated schedule of charges for services of FAA Flight Standards 
Aviation Safety Inspectors outside the United States. The advisory 
circular has been updated in accordance with the procedures listed in 
14 CFR part 187, Appendix A.

DATES: This AC is effective on October 1, 2010.

ADDRESSES: How to obtain copies: A copy of this publication may be 
downloaded from: http://www.faa.gov/documentLibrary/media/Advisory_Circular/AC%20187-1D.pdf.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Tish Thompkins-Imafidon, Flight 
Standards Service, AFS-50, Federal Aviation Administration, 800 
Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20591, telephone (202) 385-
8097.

    Issued in Washington, DC on September 29, 2010.
Raymond Towels,
Deputy Director, Flight Standards Service.
[FR Doc. 2010-26322 Filed 10-21-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
```
#### Thomas Duane BANKS, Appellant, v. STATE of Texas, Appellee.

No. 29254.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Nov. 13, 1957.

No attorney on appeal for appellant.

' Henry Wade, Dist. Atty., Homer G. Montgomery and A. D. Bowie, Asst. Dist. Attys., Dallas, and Leon B. Douglas, State’s Atty., Austin, for the State.

WOODLEY, Judge.

The offense is robbery; the punishment, five years.

The prosecuting witness, W. O. Mauldin, past seventy-four years of age and employed as an attendant at a service station in Dallas County, positively identified appellant as the person who appeared at his place of employment about 2:25 a. m. and at pistol point took from him $80 in bills, saying “Pop, this is a stick up. If you’ll do as I say you won’t get hurt but otherwise you will get killed. * * * I want all the money you’ve got.”

The evidence shows that after appellant obtained the $80 he required Mr. Mauldin to enter the rest room and drove away; that the following Sunday morning Mr. Mauldin identified appellant in a police line up of four men as the person who robbed him.

Appellant testified denying his guilt of this robbery as well as his guilt in another robbery on the same night, for which he had been convicted.

The jury accepted Mr. Mauldin’s testimony and we find it sufficient to sustain the conviction.

No error is shown in the State’s effort to have Mr. Mauldin identify the pistol taken from appellant’s companion at the time of their arrest. Appellant admitted that he had a pistol in the car he was driving and Mr. Mauldin’s interrogation added nothing to that fact.

For like reason there was no error in the identification of the pistol by the arresting officer.

The remaining complaint is directed to the evidence showing the other robbery. Appellant, by his own direct testimony, injected this offense. He cannot therefore complain that the jury was informed thereof.

The judgment is affirmed.
EXHIBIT32.1

 

CERTIFICATIONPURSUANT TO

18U.S.C. SECTION1350,

ASADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

 

Inconnection with the Quarterly Report of Petrol Oil and Gas, Inc. (the"Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ended March 31, 2004, asfiled with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the"Report"), I, Paul Branagan, President and Chief Executive Officer ofthe Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant toSection 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

 

-  The    Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the    Securities Exchange Act of 1934; andThe    information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material    respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

/s/PaulBranagan                               

PaulBranagan

Presidentand Chief Executive Officer

May 14,2004
#### Ex parte William F. ROSS.

No. 29459.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Oct. 23, 1957.

*959No attorney on appeal for appellant.

Leon B. Douglas, State’s Atty., Austin, for the State.

DICE, Commissioner.

This is an original application for writ of habeas corpus by which relator seeks his discharge from the penitentiary and alleges, among other things, that he was not represented by counsel when he was tried and convicted in the District Court of Foard County.

Upon presentation of the application, the Hon. Jesse Owens, Judge of the 46th Judicial District of Texas, was directed to develop the facts and certify them to this Court. In pursuance thereof, a hearing was held before Judge Owens and the facts as developed have been properly certified to us.

The record, as certified, reflects that on November 26, 1956, the relator entered his plea of guilty in Cause No. 829 before the District Court of Foard County to the offense of burglary, waived a trial by jury and that he had no attorney to represent him and none was appointed.

Art. 10a, V.A.C.C.P., provides that before a defendant who has no attorney can agree to waive a jury, the court must appoint an attorney to represent him. This provision of the statute is mandatory and non-compliance therewith renders the conviction void. Hernandez v. State, 138 Tex.Cr.R. 4, 133 S.W.2d 584; Ex parte Rawlins, 158 Tex.Cr.R. 346, 255 S.W.2d 877; Jones v. State, 158 Tex.Cr.R. 507, 257 S.W.2d 301; and Ex parte Kelley, 161 Tex.Cr.R. 330, 277 S.W.2d 111.

The application for writ of habeas corpus is granted and it is ordered that the relator be discharged from the custody of the Texas Department of Correction and delivered by the Department authorities to the custody of the Sheriff of Foard County to answer the indictment pending against him in said Cause No. 829 in the District Court of Foard County.

Opinion approved by the Court.
FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

STATE OF FLORIDA

_____________________________

No. 1D18-2597

_____________________________

RONTARIAN WRIGHT,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

_____________________________

On appeal from the Circuit Court for Gadsden County.

Barbara K. Hobbs, Judge.

June 13, 2019

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

RAY, BILBREY, and JAY, JJ., concur.

_____________________________

Not final until disposition of any timely and 

authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 

9.331.

_____________________________
2

Rontarian Wright, pro se, Appellant.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, and Virginia C. Harris, 

Assistant Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 02-50753 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus WILFREDO REVULTA-ESPINOZA, Defendant-Appellant.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. EP-02-CR-525-1-DB

-------------------- February 20, 2003 Before WIENER, EMILIO M. GARZA, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Wilfredo Revulta-Espinoza appeals the sentence imposed following his guilty plea conviction of attempting to illegally reenter the United States after deportation/removal in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. He contends that the sentence is invalid because it exceeds the two-year maximum term of imprisonment prescribed in 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a). Revulta-Espinoza complains that his sentence was improperly enhanced pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b). He argues that the sentencing provision is unconstitutional. Alternatively, Revulta-Espinoza contends thatNo. 02-50753 -2- 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a) and 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b) define separate offenses. He argues that the prior conviction that resulted in his increased sentence was an element of a separate offense under 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b) that should have been alleged in his indictment.
In Almendarez-Torres v. United States , 523 U.S. 224, 235 (1998), the Supreme Court held that the enhanced penalties in 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b) are sentencing provisions, not elements of separate offenses. The Court further held that the sentencing provisions do not violate the Due Process Clause. Id. at 239-47. Revulta-Espinoza acknowledges that his arguments are foreclosed by Almendarez-Torres , but asserts that the decision has been cast into doubt by Apprendi v. New Jersey , 530 U.S. 466, 490 (2000). He seeks to preserve his arguments for further review. Apprendi did not overrule Almendarez-Torres

. See Apprendi , 530 U.S. at 489-90; United States v. Dabeit , 231 F.3d 979, 984 (5th Cir. 2000). This court must follow Almendarez-Torres “unless and until the Supreme Court itself determines to overrule it.” Dabeit , 231 F.3d at 984 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). The judgment of the district court is
AFFIRMED. The Government has moved for a summary affirmance in lieu of filing an appellee’s brief. In its motion, the Government asks that an appellee’s brief not be required. The motion is GRANTED. AFFIRMED; MOTION GRANTED.
Exhibit 32.2

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

UNDER

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT

PACIFIC MERCANTILE BANCORP

Quarterly Report
on Form 10-Q

for the quarter ended September 30, 2010

The undersigned, who is the Chief Financial Officer of Pacific Mercantile Bancorp (the Company), hereby certifies that (i) the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended
September 30, 2010, as filed by the Company with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the Quarterly Report), to which this Certification is an Exhibit, fully complies with the applicable requirements of Section 13(a) and
15(d) of the Exchange Act; and (ii) the information contained in this Quarterly Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.



|                        |  |  |  |                                                                                                                                                                                                                            
|----------------------- |  |  |  | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|Date: November 10, 2010 |  |  |  | /s/    NANCY A. GRAY                                                                                                                                                                                                       
|                        |  |  |  | Nancy A. Gray,                                                                                                                                                                                                             
|                        |  |  |  | Chief Financial Officer                                                                                                                                                                                                    
|                        |  | 
|                        |  |  |  | A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities
and Exchange Commission on its staff upon request.
Cite as 2016 Ark. 316

SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS 

Opinion Delivered September 15, 2016

IN RE ARKANSAS SUPREME 

COURT BOARD OF CERTIFIED 

COURT REPORTER 

EXAMINERS

PER CURIAM 

Honorable Brad L. Karren of Bentonville, Circuit Judge, 19th West Judicial Circuit, 

is appointed to the Arkansas Supreme Court Board of Certified Court Reporter Examiners 

for a three-year term expiring on September 15, 2019. The court thanks him for his 

willingness to serve on this important board. 

 The court expresses its gratitude to outgoing member Judge Richard N. Moore of 

Little Rock, whose term has expired, for his years of valuable service to this board.
# HE Quad Specification

Autopilot Pixhawk v2.4.5 Firmware Arducopter 3.2 GPS uBlox GPS with Compass (LEA

-6H module, 5 Hz update) Telemetry Radio Telemetry v2 (915 mHz) Motors 380kV Frame Type X (Quadcopter) Propeller 16 5.5 counterclockwise (2 screw mounting)

16 5.5 clockwise (2 screw mounting) Battery 4S 8Ah 30C Lithium Polymer Low Battery Voltage 14
Maximum Voltage 16.8 Battery Cell Limit 4S Battery Weight 746g Aircraft “wet” Weight 2315g
Payload 566g Height 115 mm Motor to Motor 699 Radio 2.4 Ghz DSM2/DSMX Modulation
#### L. A. VANDERFORD, Appellant, v. Kelly AMTHOR, Appellee.

Motion Nos. 11735, 11736.

Court of Civil Appeals of Texas. Austin.

Oct. 10, 1956.

Clyde Vinson, San Angel°, for appellant.

Senterfitt & Crump, San Saba, for ap-pellee.

ARCHER, Chief Justice.

Appellant has filed his motion herein for an extension of time in which to file a transcript and statement of facts.

The hearing on a plea of privilege was had and judgment overruling such plea was had on August 21, 1956, and appellant excepted and gave notice of appeal. The appeal bond and the statement of facts were filed with the County Clerk on September 6, 1956.

A transcript was ordered on the same day and was forwarded to appellant by mail, who received it on September 11, 1956 at San Angeló, Texas.

Counsel for appellant was out of his office in' San Angelo until the 12th of September, 1956, and forwarded the transcript and statement of facts to 'the Clerk of this Court. • ■

Rule 385, Texas Rules of Civil Procedure, providés for appeals in interlocutory order’s and limits the time to 20 days and 5 days respectively.

No *good cause*has been shown by appellant why the transcript and statement of facts could not have been filed within the 20-day period.

The clerk of the county court states under oath that appellant’s attorney requested the transcript on September 6, 1956 and stated that he was.in no hurry and that it would be all right if he got the transcript in 10 days, and the clerk stated that he •mailed the transcript to appellant’s attorney on September 11,1956.

Appellant’s counsel admits that he was not conscious of the time element in appeals from ancillary orders.

The motion is overruled. Rule 385, T.R.C.P.; Matlock v. Matlock, 151 Tex. 308, 249 S.W.2d 587.

*759Appellee has filed herein his Motion" • No. 11,736, to affirm the judgment on certificate on account of the failure of appel- ■ lant to timely file transcript and statement. of facts with the Clerk of this Court, which we sustain, and the judgment of the , trial court is affirmed. Rule 387, T.R.C.P.

Motion overruled.
Exhibit 10.23  



	

 	[HAWKER LOGO]
	 	S.A. EnerSys N.V.

Houtweg 26, 1140 Bruxelles-Brussel
	 	Tel: +32 (0)2 215 18 18	- Fax: +32 (0)2 215 49 30
	 	Postbus 37029	- Bovendijk 132
	 	NL-3005 LA Rotterdam	- NL-3045 PC Rotterdam
	 	Tel: +31 (0)10 285 5600	- Fax: +31(10) 418 54 68
	 	www.enersysinc.com
	  	 	 




May 8,
2003 


Raymond
R. Kubis

2135 Lincoln Lake

Coal City IL    60416 


Dear
Ray: 


        With
reference to the Managing Directorship Agreement dated January 8, 2002 (the "Directorship Agreement") between you and EnerSys S.A. (formerly known as Hawker
Belgium S.A., and referred to herein as the "Company"), pursuant to which you are currently serving as Managing Director of the Company, we confirm that effective as of April 1, 2003
your annual fixed gross emolument provided for in Subsection 2.1 of the Directorship Agreement has been increased to €297,600 (payable in twelve monthly installments of
€24,800 each). Subsection 2.1 of the Directorship Agreement is hereby amended to reflect such increase. 


        Except
as expressly set forth herein, the Directorship Agreement shall remain in full force and effect. 



	 	 	EnerSys S.A.
	 	 	 	 	 
	

 	
 	

By:	
 	

/s/  Nadine deSmit      
 Nadine deSmit

Managing Director
	 	 	 	 	 
	

 	
 	

By:	
 	

/s/  Raymond R. Kubis      
 Raymond R. Kubis